by Xandria 95 Replies latest social current
So Bush is just " looking for political points" by visiting Iraq
I suppose, if he didnt go, he would be "Ignoring the troops he sent to war"
Try this,
Get a friend and sit on opposite sides of a table
Place a cup in the centre of the table with the handle pointing to one side
Each state which side of the cup the handle is on (left or right)
Now get into a long argument about it
Makes about as much sense as arguing politics
GUMBY.... What you posted earlier about Bush's I.Q. was from a BOGUS report... this is the correct information:
The Lovenstein Institute IQ ReportIn July 2001 an e-mail (see below) began to circulate around the internet claiming that the Lovenstein Institute, a think-tank based in Scranton, Pennsylvania, had conducted research into the IQ of all the Presidents of the past 50 years and concluded that George W. Bush ranked at the bottom, with an IQ of only 91. This news quickly gained attention from the international media. The London Guardian broke the story on July 19, and on August 26 Garry Trudeau featured the report in his Doonesbury comic strip.
Unfortunately both Trudeau and the Guardian had been taken in by a hoax. The e-mail had originated as a joke on a website called linkydinky.com. In its original version, the joke was evident. For instance, Linkydinky.com cited the Pennsylvania Court Observer as its source for the news, but this paper was simultaneously described as having a circlation of only five readers. Furthermore, Dr. Lovenstein was described as "living in a mobile home in Scranton, Pennsylvania." As the joke began to make its way through people's e-mail, these textual clues were removed, making it appear that the Lovenstein Institute was an actual research organization. Once they learned of their mistakes, both Trudeau and the Guardian published retractions.
Hey Gumby, since people aren't as likely to see the link Dakota posted (to snopes) as they are to see what you posted, you might think about editing that to make it clear that it is a hoax.
Searcher, politics is at the core of democracy. If you know a better way...?
Red
how many were awake to hear them
That would have been a good dig, but i was thinking that it was dark when he got there, and they were still sleeping.
600 or so soldiers in the tent appreciated the visit
Not bad, but still, even w the secrecy, it could have been arranged so he could have met more.
Maybe you could actually watch some news reports or read a newspaper to find out for yourself?
I don't have tv, and rarely watch. There is entirely too much shit for my taste. Of course i do miss some good stuff.
maybe she is trying to make sure she appears as being tough too, in case she decides to jump into the Presidential race this year?
Well, of course, but she is tough, too, and very ambitious. As i don't watch tv, i wasn't aware that she had gone to afghanistan. I'm not a fan of hers anyway, as you automatically assume i must be. If she got in, i would likely be picking at her. She may well be more of a hawk than bush(rumer has it she was the push behind taking out koresh and his gang).
SS
Not bad, but still, even w the secrecy, it could have been arranged so he could have met more.
A report on the news said that 600 soldiers were invited by lottery draw to a "special" thanksgiving dinner with the top brass in Iraqi. No one knew that it would be the Prez, even the top brass didn't know until the last minute.
Sixy
No there isnt a better way IMO, but what difference will arguing (discussing) it on a DB make?
You, me and anyone else all have people we would vote for, in some cases no-one, the polititions themselves cause us to support them or not by their actions (or lack of in some cases).
I guess I never could see the point of discussing politics, those people all seem to do just what they want, even if, in some cases, they promised to do something else when they were trying to get elected.
Maybe a rule that, if an elected politition did not keep promises made, they are barred from running for re-election?
Nah, that would just bring the lawyers into it, arguing points.
Looks like we are all stuck with what we got. :D
Six, I said I would check into Bush's Service and whether or not his Dad was capable of puling many strings. George Bush Sr, was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1966. Bush Jr was in the Guard from 1968 to 1973. The time period those that dislike Bush makes claims to about his supposed to be deserting ot AWOL was from 1972 to 1973.
While it's possible Sr may have encourage others to keep Jr. out, I still doubt it as he was still somewhat of a Jr. Congressman. Like claims about Gore, it would take hard evidence that eithers fathers kept them out as claimed. Hard evidence for the claim of both fathers pulling strings simply isn't there.
As for claims of AWOL when others were fighting and dying, US involvment was ended in Vietnam in 1973. In 1972, there were very few troops still left there and minimal chance of anymore Guard people being activated. The ones I met were there with me in 1969 when some heavy fighting was still going on.
Evidently, he did go AWOL, but to be honest, so did I, a time or two and most every person I was there with. Regardless, to condemn Bush for this while having given Clinton a pass for 8 years on his protesting, draft dodging and burning of the American flag overseas, comes across as hypocritical to me. For 8 years we were constantly told that character doesn't matter. Now, since Bush has gotten elected, all of a sudden, it matters again.
I have no problem with any disagreeing with any politician, their policies need to be and should be held up to public scrutiny. But, to constantly bewail about rumors and ancient history, after giving the predeccesor a pass for even worse, is to me, just plain wrong.
Yeah, after looking at it closer, I agree Dakota, it's not nearly the issue it's been made out to be on either side.
It's just .. ironic?... that the issue has come back to haunt both Clinton and Bush not so much politically, but from an introspective, "who-am-I-and-do-I-send-boys-to-their-sure-death" standpoint. Of course, maybe the way men who operate at those levels of politics get to those levels of politics is by not spending alot of time being introspective.
edited to add: ahh, who am I kiddin'? The issue, if it haunts them, it haunts them primarily politically.
Luv yer avatar Sixy.
It speaks to the duality of man, while at the same time pointing out the dichotomous nature of dichotomy.
It's also purty.
Dakota, you got me to thinking about the flip-flop on the character issue, on both sides.
When Clinton was in office, conservatives kept hounding on the charater issue, while liberals dismissed it. Now, any character issues with Dubya are dismissed by conservatives, while liberals keep bringing it up.
Honestly, no matter who is in office is going to have their character questioned. Yes, Clinton did have "an inappropriate relationship" with Monica Lewinsky. Yes, Dubya is one of the least articulate presidents we've ever had. Yes, Clinton went overseas and burned the American flag. Yes, Dubya drank and snorted almost everything in West Texas. Yes, Clinton did everything he could to avoid the draft (except tell them he was a dub ). And yes, Dubya did a great job keeping the Viet-cong out of Dallas during the Vietnam War.
You said you have no problem with anyone disagreeing with a politician, but to contantly bring up the past on one politician after giving the other "a pass" is wrong. I agree with you, but to be honest I can't see that Clinton got any more of a pass then Dubya. He's been out of office for three years and his past is still the topic of heated debates. And don't forget, Clinton was the first president since Andrew Johnson, in 1868, to face impeachment. No free passes as far as I can tell. To me the biggest issue is have they grown and learned from their mistakes? That is a true measure of a leader.
Thanks for the post, Dakota. I appreciate your making me "think" this moring.
